AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D Review: AMD Retakes Gaming Crown with 3D V-Cache

AMD takes a bite out of Raptor Lake.

By Paul Alcorn
published
AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D
Editor's Choice
(Image: © Tom's Hardware)

Why you can trust Tom's Hardware Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.

AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D Power Consumption and Efficiency

Swipe to scroll horizontally
AMD Socket AM5 TDP and Maximum Power Ratings
Header Cell - Column 0 65W TDP105W TDP120W TDP (X3D)170W TDP
Socket Power (PPT) Watts88W142W162W230W
Peak Current (EDC) Amps150A170A180A225A
Sustained Current (TDC) Amps75A110A120A160A

AMD defined new TDP ranges with the debut of Zen 4 and the AM4 platform. All three Ryzen 7000X3D chips have their own new category — the 120W entry in the table above. This means the flagship 7950X3D operates in a much lower power and thermal envelope than the standard Ryzen 9 7950X. That's evident in our power testing.

Image 1 of 11
AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)

AMD's Ryzen chips have excellent power and efficiency metrics, but the Ryzen 9 7950X3D is even more efficient because it has a lower 120W TDP rating. This means the chip is similar to a 7950X operating slightly above the 105W Eco Mode.

Ryzen’s Eco Mode allows you to downshift AMD processors into lower TDP envelopes with a single click in the BIOS or Ryzen Master software, thus yielding lower power consumption and heat. This also improves efficiency tremendously. We can see those same benefits reflected in the 7950X’s Handbrake renders-per-watt efficiency metric, which blows past the standard 7950X and the rest of the competition by a large margin.

We also experimented with enabling the auto-overclocking PBO in tandem with undervolting (listed as PBO UV in the charts), and you can see the impressive reduction in power consumption across a few of these power measurements. Remember, the undervolted configuration is often faster than the standard 7950X config in some of these benchmarks. You’ll see that in our productivity application testing on the following pages.

Our highest average power measurement for the 7950X3D weighed in at 149W, showing that the chip often runs below its official 162W peak power rating (PPT).

Image 1 of 2
AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)

Here we take a slightly different look at power consumption by calculating the cumulative energy required to perform x264 and x265 HandBrake workloads, respectively. We plot this 'task energy' value in Kilojoules on the left side of the chart.

These workloads are comprised of a fixed amount of work, so we can plot the task energy against the time required to finish the job (bottom axis), thus generating a really useful power chart.

Bear in mind that faster compute times, and lower task energy requirements, are ideal. That means processors that fall the closest to the bottom left corner of the chart are the best. After the impressive performance in the renders-per-day power efficiency metric, it’s no surprise to find the Ryzen 9 7950X3D flaunting an excellent blend of power and performance — the chip consumes far less cumulative energy than the others yet still delivers competitive performance.

Paul Alcorn
Paul Alcorn
Deputy Managing Editor

Paul Alcorn is the Deputy Managing Editor for Tom's Hardware US. He writes news and reviews on CPUs, storage and enterprise hardware.

74 Comments Comment from the forums
  • PlaneInTheSky
    Steep pricing
    No support for DDR4 memory
    Reduced performance in some productivity apps
    The cons just weigh too heavy for me to even consider the CPU or the AM5 platform.

    I already have DDR4. AMD expects me to just throw this into the trash and buy expensive new DDR5 for a 1% difference in performance. It even bothers me from an e-waste perspective, let alone the financial cost.

    The fact performance of X3D CPU is all over the place bothers me too. Yes it's fast in -some- games, but then you get less overall performance in several important applications. If I just used my PC for gaming, I would have bought a console, I don't like the idea of having to make a trade-off with X3D CPU.

    Another thing is, and this is not AMD specific but PC specific. The biggest issue with gaming on PC has been stuttering because shaders need to be runtime compiled on PC. This CPU will not solve this. When PC gaming becomes a meme, #stutterstruggle, I don't think many people are going to be willing to invest in $600+ CPU. Solve this problem, PC gaming is currently in shambles.
    Reply
  • cknobman
    Every single media outlet beating the "DDR5 cost" dead horse over and over again.
    When talking about ultimate gaming performance, which these 3D chips are designed for, saying the platform cost of DDR5 is a negative is stupid.
    DDR4 is a dead end and should only be considered for budget builds and upgrades on older systems at this point.

    Just let the "platform cost" argument go, otherwise test Intel with DDR4 and make proper comparisons showing what you get going with older and slower technology.
    Reply
  • PEnns
    Wow, AMD is for once forcing users to upgrade to new hardware.......and DDR5! How horrible!!

    I heard that lame story so many times before, Intel does it every 2-3 years!!!
    Reply
  • drivinfast247
    PlaneInTheSky said:
    The cons just weigh too heavy for me to even consider the CPU or the AM5 platform.

    I already have DDR4. AMD expects me to just throw this into the trash and buy expensive new DDR5 for a 1% difference in performance. It even bothers me from an e-waste perspective, let alone the financial cost.

    The fact performance of X3D CPU is all over the place bothers me too. Yes it's fast in -some- games, but then you get less overall performance in several important applications. If I just used my PC for gaming, I would have bought a console, I don't like the idea of having to make a trade-off with X3D CPU.

    Another thing is, and this is not AMD specific but PC specific. The biggest issue with gaming on PC has been stuttering because shaders need to be runtime compiled on PC. This CPU will not solve this. When PC gaming becomes a meme, #stutterstruggle, I don't think many people are going to be willing to invest in $600+ CPU. Solve this problem, PC gaming is currently in shambles.
    I don't think they're targeting you specifically. No need to upgrade if not needed. Don't forget there's other people whom may be building their first PC or upgrading from a very old platform and the performance increase will be astronomical.

    Curious as to what games are struggling to run on PC and also what PCs are struggling to run games? Also, are those affected games also having issues on consoles?

    My PC runs every game that I play without issues. And with the recent GPU upgrade I'll be happy for another year or so and will upgrade when needed.
    Reply
  • Elusive Ruse
    PlaneInTheSky said:
    The cons just weigh too heavy for me to even consider the CPU or the AM5 platform.

    I already have DDR4. AMD expects me to just throw this into the trash and buy expensive new DDR5 for a 1% difference in performance. It even bothers me from an e-waste perspective, let alone the financial cost.

    The fact performance of X3D CPU is all over the place bothers me too. Yes it's fast in -some- games, but then you get less overall performance in several important applications. If I just used my PC for gaming, I would have bought a console, I don't like the idea of having to make a trade-off with X3D CPU.

    Another thing is, and this is not AMD specific but PC specific. The biggest issue with gaming on PC has been stuttering because shaders need to be runtime compiled on PC. This CPU will not solve this. When PC gaming becomes a meme, #stutterstruggle, I don't think many people are going to be willing to invest in $600+ CPU. Solve this problem, PC gaming is currently in shambles.
    Ah cut the crap will you?
    PlaneInTheSky said:
    My PC from 14 years ago still browses the internet just fine. It still does Spotify, Netflix, indie gaming, etc.
    At some point your average PC became "good enough" for most tasks.

    This is starting to happen with PC gaming too. While AAA developers still bother to spend years making "uber graphics", most developers have long stopped with this rat race because better graphics rarely translates to better sales.

    You have no intention of upgrading to anything, you have admitted it before. All you do here is dump on new tech because for some reason you cannot deal with change. You have an axe to grind when it comes to AMD and anything that puts your fossil of a setup into perspective.
    Reply
  • Elusive Ruse
    cknobman said:
    Every single media outlet beating the "DDR5 cost" dead horse over and over again.
    When talking about ultimate gaming performance, which these 3D chips are designed for, saying the platform cost of DDR5 is a negative is stupid.
    DDR4 is a dead end and should only be considered for budget builds and upgrades on older systems at this point.

    Just let the "platform cost" argument go, otherwise test Intel with DDR4 and make proper comparisons showing what you get going with older and slower technology.
    Especially considering that Intel's 13th gen would take a massive performance plunge if paired with DDR4.

    It is intellectually disingenuous to put lack of DDR4 support as a con here, if only for the reason that it has already been established that AM5 doesn't support it. Is Tom's Hardware going to put "Lack of DDR4 support" as a con for every CPU that comes out from now on?
    Reply
  • lmcnabney
    Excellent article.

    I noted that Paul mentioned AMD's specification to use water-cooling on the X3D lineup. After noting the low power usage of these chips I am curious as to why. Has the chip been tested using a more typical air cooled tower fan (with both standard, PBO, and PBO-UV) to determine if water-cooling is even necessary?
    Reply
  • Lazar4ee
    If you ignore AMD CPU it is actually quite an AD for RTX 4090 beast :D
    Reply
  • Elusive Ruse
    lmcnabney said:
    Excellent article.

    I noted that Paul mentioned AMD's specification to use water-cooling on the X3D lineup. After noting the low power usage of these chips I am curious as to why. Has the chip been tested using a more typical air cooled tower fan (with both standard, PBO, and PBO-UV) to determine if water-cooling is even necessary?
    According to AMD, V-cache is sensitive to heat; that's why they decreased the TjMax to 89c and reduced the TDP as well. I assume that's also why they instructed reviewers to use water-cooling.
    Reply
  • Alvar "Miles" Udell
    13% faster in games at 1920x1080 comparing stock to stock for 20% more money (or 25% if using the current discount)...that's proper gamer logic for sure.

    If anything it's an advertisement for the 5800x3d. 16% slower at 1920x1080 yet only 44% of the price, plus the platform cost is far cheaper and all you sacrifice is PCIe 5.0.
    Reply